Argentina v. Zee Germans

-Well, the big rabbit gets fucked, doesn't it?
--...proper fucked?
-Yeah, Tommy.  Before zee Germans get there.

Welcome to the World Cup final.  I'm disappointed to not see the Dutch today.  They're just so very orange.  But, sadly, that's just the way soccer goes sometimes.  Fun fact about Holland: the password to every computer in Holland is ruud_van_nistelrooy.

At least the Americans aren't in the final.  Just imagine how annoying you people would be if they were.  Two extra weeks of hearing about how this time is going to be the time that soccer becomes popular in America.  We never learn.  No time will ever be the time that soccer becomes popular in America.  You know why?  Because we have better sports.  It's not a knock on soccer, it's just the reality.  We have like 10 different options that are better than MLS.  We just do.  The Premier League is fantastic, you should watch it sometime, you'd love it.  MLS sucks, and I don't see that changing.  I love football, but I don't watch the CFL.  You know why?  Because it's silly and pointless, just like MLS.

It's just about time to get started, and I assume we're all rooting for Germany, right?  Listen, Germany is only good at two things, soccer and apocalyptic genocide.  I think it's in all of our best interests to keep them happy about soccer.  Poland, if Argentina wins this game, you'd better start running.

I just found out that last time these two teams met in the World Cup final, Germany (then West Germany, so that's fun) won the match on a "debatable late penalty".  As far as I can tell, every penalty kick ever awarded in the history of soccer can be described as "debatable".

I have two of the same observations I had four years ago, and they both bear repeating.  First of all, I love how the World Cup does the national anthems.  No pop singers, no nonsense, just poor quality recordings through the stadium PA, which the crowd is happy to sing along with.  It's perfect.  And second, seriously, WHO ARE THESE LITTLE KIDS WHO COME OUT ON THE FIELD WITH THE PLAYERS??  Why are they there?  It's the strangest sports custom I've ever seen.  Why?  Why soccer??

1st minute: Argentina are wearing a shade of blue I don't believe I've ever seen before.  It's marvelous.

3rd minute: A German player gets casually bumped and falls down like he's been shot.  Free kick to Germany.  Germany kicks the ball directly into a wall of Argentinians.  Argentines?  People from Argentina.

4th minute: Argentina just had a really good chance, but the announcers didn't really react.  They need to get warmed up.  Not a criticism, by the way.  I wish Ian Darke could do every sporting event in the world, and narrate my life.

8th minute: Messi just did some stuff Ian described as "a little alarming" for Germany.  Messi, apparently, is very good at soccer and Ian gets very excited whenever he touches the ball.

10th minute: "A bright start" for Argentina.  The consensus seems to be that the Brazilian fans would rather Argentina not win a World Cup on Brazil's home turf, but honestly, it's kind of hard to tell who the crowd is rooting for.  I'm hearing a lot of chanting and they're cheering for basically everything that happens.

13th minute: "A lovely looking cross" for the Germans, but nothing to show for it.

15th minute: Argentina has a fantastic four up front.  Not the fantastic four, just a fantastic four.

16th minute: According to the advertising on the side of the pitch (I used a soccer word!), McDonald's has a gol! app, which I assume you can use to eat McDonald's every day for a year and then never play soccer again because you have diabetes.

17th minute: Some poor German guy just took a shoulder to the head.  He tried to get up and then fell back down again.  He's going to need a minute.

19th minute: As far as I can tell, Germany are playing a man down until they figure out whether or not that guy has a concussion.  That seems like a bad game plan.  Soccer is weird.

21st minute: A German turnover just resulted in "a glorious chance" for Argentina, but they kicked the ball "way, way, way wide".

22nd minute: Ian and his buddy are still mocking how far wide the Argentinian player kicked the ball.  They think Messi would have nailed it.  In other news, concussion guy is apparently fine and back in the game.

Fun soccer fact: Every time a team gets a free kick against Germany and they form a wall 10 yards away from the kick, the other team is required by FIFA rules to have at least one player on their bench make a Berlin wall joke.

28th minute: Germany almost scored on a ball which both announcers described as lovely, but they were offside.  I hate soccer's offside rule as much as I hate anything in sports.  There's no offside line, you just can't run behind the last defender until the ball has been kicked to you.  They're basically punishing players for being faster and smarter than their opponents.  I hate it.  Just paint an offside line on the field.  How hard is that?

29th minute: A German player with an incredibly German name just got the first yellow card of the game for barely running into someone.

30th minute: Argentina just scored, but not really because they were offside.  Ugh.

31st minute: Germany's concussion guy just fell down again, so after 10 minutes of letting him play with a concussion, the Germans finally decided he should probably just sit the rest of this one out.  The announcers are correctly hammering the Germans for letting him play.

33rd minute: Ian and his buddy are openly mocking a dive taken by an Argentinian player.  So even soccer people can see this.  The NHL fixed this problem, why can't FIFA?

34th minute: A German player just tried to kick an Argentinian player in the testicles.  He got a yellow card.  Ian added "that's yellow plus".  Damn straight.

36th minute: Messi almost did a thing, but the Germans stopped him.  That led to a corner kick which, like most corner kicks, led to nothing.

37th minute: Really fun sequence here.  Right after Argentina's failed corner kick, Germany charged down the pitch (soccer!) and had an excellent scoring chance.  Then, just for fun, one of the Argentinian players chased the ball over to the corner and fell over the little flag in the corner kick spot.  It was pretty funny but Ian and the other guy both missed it.

40th minute: Argentina almost scored again.  They had two guys with the ball behind the German keeper, but the German defenders handled it with precision and grim determination, as all Germans handle all things.

43rd minute: Ian calls his announcing buddy Macca.  Seriously, there's nothing I wouldn't watch if these two guys were doing commentary.

47th minute: Germany just knocked a header right off the goal post.  Then Muller tried to score on the rebound, and he failed, but he was offside either way.  Ugh.

Quick re-cap of a recent board meeting at the ABC network:
Suit #1: We have a great idea for a show.  We'll get an academy award winning actress to star in a show with a really catchy title, we're thinking "How to Get Away with Murder".
Suit #2: Oh I like it, will the plot of the actual show need to make sense?
Suit #1: No, I don't think so.
Suit #2: OK awesome, let's do it.

One thing the World Cup and the Tour de France have in common is awesome Britishy commentary.  If you're looking for sports to watch in July, I highly recommend the Tour de France.  It's mesmerizing.  It shouldn't be, you literally couldn't pay me to watch any other cycling race, but I can't look away from the Tour de France.

Fun soccer fact: There's a guy on the Brazilian team named Fred.  Just Fred.  I know the Brazilians are known for just using one name, but it's usually something fancy like Pele or Ronaldo.  It takes a lot of balls to have this conversation:
Equipment Manager: What name should we put on your jersey?
Fred: Fred
Equipment Manager: Yeah, but Fred what?  What's your last name?
Fred: Nah dog, just Fred.

47th minute: Messi just barely missed the net.  I'm starting to get worried that this game might involve extra time.  If I get a vote, I vote no thank you.

51st minute: Ian just called Messi "the little magician".  I'd love to know how Messi feels about that.  Magician sounds complementary, but guys generally don't like being called little.  It's a real mixed bag.

55th minute: Ian just mentioned extra time and I'm getting increasingly nervous about it.

57th minute: The German keeper and an Argentinian player just had a mid-air collision.  It was awesome.  The Argentinian player is still down and, on top of that, he was called for a foul for viciously assaulting the German keeper's leg with his neck.

59th minute: Klose just almost scored a goal for Germany with his head.  Which reminds me, I'm shocked American parents haven't forced children's soccer leagues to make the players wear helmets.  Doesn't that seem like something American parents would do?  It's certainly stupid enough for them.

64th minute: Another yellow card for, I don't know, something.

65th minute: And another one.  I have very little grasp on what constitutes a yellow cardable offense.  I know someone has to fall down.  That's all I know.

70th minute: I just learned that the World Cup trophy has "no specific value" but FIFA says it's "worth as much as the Mona Lisa, in it's way".  Umm, what?

72nd minute: This is the part of the game when both teams get pretty tired, which leads to lots of fouls and cards and stuff, and not a lot of action.  This brings me to another question.  Soccer's substitution rules.  They make no sense to me.  Soccer people are always bitching about what a work out playing a game of soccer is.  I don't believe them, but let's say that's true.  Why so restrictive with the substitution rules?  You only get three all game.  Wouldn't games be better if the best players could get a little rest like every other team sport allows?

Fun Germany fact: There are no fun Germany facts.  There's nothing fun about Germany.

80th minute: Germany just did a bunch of things right around Argentina's goal, but nothing came of it.  Lots of passing and almost shooting.  Soccer teams are a lot like hockey teams with bad power play units.  You just keep wishing they'd shoot.

82nd minute: Germany are starting to look a little punchy.  Argentina are currently looking pretty tired.  Somebody get them some orange slices.

84th minute: Ian just said Brazil did a good job preparing for the World Cup.  I mean, yeah, except for that thing that collapsed and killed a few people.  But hey, if you want to make an omelet...right?

85th minute: I could go for an omelet right now.

86th minute: The Argentinian player who just came out ran 9.71km in about 85 minutes.  You could briskly walk that distance in 85 minutes.  Tell me again why soccer is supposedly so hard.  Is it because sometimes they have to kick a thing.  That doesn't seem that hard.

93rd minute: Extra time.  Why soccer, why?  If you're not familiar, extra time is two 15-minute periods, and no sudden death, which I continue to find puzzling for such a low scoring sport.  Then, if no one scores (and usually no one does) they go to penalty kicks.  I've said this before and I'll say it again, deciding the World Cup with penalty kicks is like deciding the NBA finals with a slam dunk contest.  It makes no sense.

91st minute: The Germans just had a fantastic chance.  The Argentinian keeper just earned his money.  I think.  Do they get paid for this?  Maybe not.  Well, he earned his whatever it is he gets for this.

93rd minute: The Germans are really good at getting back on defense.  It looks like Argentina have a break with numbers, and then five Germans just sort of show up.

96th minute: The Brazilian crowd appears to be attending a theme party.  The theme?  Silly hats.

97th minute: Excellent chance for Argentina.  The player sort of chipped the ball over the German keeper, but then also past the net.

99th minute: These keepers routinely punt the ball 70+ yards.  It led me to wonder why 30 of them aren't punters for NFL teams, but I think Europe pays soccer keepers more than America pays punters.

103rd minute: This is getting terrible.  A few days ago Germany soccered the shit out of Brazil.  Today they can't even score once.  If both teams agree, can we just do penalty kicks now?

105th minute: There's a German player on the ground.  He got kicked in the shin and fell on his arm, and now he's holding his face for some reason.

106th minute: For the record, Ian and Macca both completely agree with me about deciding the World Cup with penalty kicks, so there.

109th minute: A German player just got punched in the face, unintentionally I guess, so it's not worth a yellow card.  He's bleeding quite a bit though.  Most of the other yellow card things today seemed unintentional too.  I'm still pretty confused.

110th minute: Two guys just smacked their heads together.  Accidental as well, according to Macca.

113th minute: The Germans are all over the referee right now.

113th minute: Ian just described somebody as "full of running" and then GOALLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!! 1-0 Germany!  Scored by "Super" Mario Gotze (apparently pronounced Gertza).  That just sort of happened, nice play.

115th minute: Shots of Argentinian children crying in the crowd.  Why do you hate children Germany?

116th minute: According to Ian and Macca, scoring the equalizer for Argentina is 100% Messi's responsibility.  So he's the Lebron of Argentina, is what I'm hearing (obligatory Lebron reference completed, just in time too).

119th minute: Let's just say Ian and Macca don't love Argentina's chances right now.

122nd minute: Free kick for Messi.  Not a big deal.  Just one chance to kick the ball into the net from about 30 yards away to prevent his entire country from being crushed.  He literally kicked the ball 15 feet over the net.  Macca described it as "slightly selfish".  Macca is pretty catty sometimes.

Well, there you have it.  Germany wins.  Poland can rest easy, for now.  Adios soccer!  See you in 2018, in Russia, because FIFA.

The Last Straw (AKA Robot Bees)

Hey there.  Soooo....I completely stopped blogging for a while, for like 5 months.  Why?  Well, two reasons really.  First of all, sometimes I get so sick of myself that I just want to shoot me in the face.  I needed a break from putting the nonsense in my head into internet words.  Secondly, I almost completely stopped paying attention to political news.  Why?  Well, two more reasons.

First of all, I recently got a DVR.  It's the best TV related thing I've experienced since I discovered The West Wing.  Not only can I pause and rewind TV shows, which is perfect for me because I constantly stop paying attention to things I'm doing, even when I'm interested in them.  I regularly rewind something more than once because I'm genuinely interested in it but somehow my mind still wanders during it and I miss it.  I definitely would have been diagnosed with ADHD if I had been born 10 years later.  Wait, where was I?  Oh yeah, not only can I pause and rewind TV shows, but I can also record shows and watch them later.  Which means I can record the Daily Show and Colbert and @midnight and then I can watch them the next day when I get home from work, which means no more early evening Fox or MSNBC. 

More importantly, I literally couldn't take it anymore.  I've made this complaint before, but it's worth repeating.  Fox's 5PM slot has really gone downhill.  Glenn Beck was hilarious and genuinely entertaining.  As you might have guessed, putting a barely coherent lunatic on TV for an hour a day turned out to be a pretty solid programming idea.  In contrast, Fox's new 5PM show answers the burning question "what do morons think about everything?".  It's so stupid and because there are five of them, it's cluttered and not even really entertaining.  I think if you just gave Eric Bolling an hour to rant, he'd reach Beckian levels of insanity pretty quickly.  Unfortunately, his current show always provides someone to cut him off before he really gets going. 

The other thing with Fox is they have absolutely become the boy who cried Obama.  In Fox's universe, President Obama is engulfed in so many scandals he's making Watergate look like the Teapot Dome scandal (gotta love a Warren G. Harding reference...also, as far as I can tell, the Teapot Dome scandal is now what we call "lobbying").  The timing of the VA scandal couldn't be better because it's like Fox is challenging their viewers..."there's a real scandal in here somewhere...can you find it?...we bet you can't!". 

Meanwhile, MSNBC has gone round the bend.  I tuned into MSNBC one night this week and I caught a little of Chris Hayes' show.  I generally think of Chris Hayes as a reasonable fellow.  What was Chris talking about...this week...which is in June?  Chris Christie and a bridge.  I'm not kidding.  Actually I think he was talking about Chris Christie and a Skyway, which is sort of like a bridge but over land I guess.  So, as far as I can tell, MSNBC has been talking about Chris Christie and bridges (and skyways, and maybe tunnels) for six months now, only stopping to remind us of what a great President they think Hillary Clinton would be.

Quick detour...is Hillary Clinton out of touch with regular people?  Of-fucking-course she is.  She's spent almost all of the last 22 years being First Lady, a Senator, a Presidential candidate and a Cabinet Secretary.  If you HALO dropped Hillary Clinton into a working class neighborhood she'd be like a Star Trek away team member on a strange planet..."Captain, I see people getting their own coffee.  It's like they don't even know what a personal assistant is.  And I see cars driving around without an important person riding in the back seat.  Oh god!  Did they kill all the important people?!?  Get me out of here!".  It isn't her fault, it doesn't make her a bad person, it's just the way it is.

So what brought me back?  What sucked me back into cable news and got me to log back in to my dormant blog?  It was the President.  This President that I've mostly defended over the last six years.  This President who I've always stuck by.  I stuck by him when he ruthlessly insisted on giving more people access to health care.  I stuck by him when he tried to talk about gun control after some asshole shot a bunch of kids, even though we all know mass shootings are about literally everything but guns.  I consistently stick by him when he continues to reference god and jesus even though we all know he's an atheist.  I've stuck by him even as he continues to insist upon being black, even though the Republicans have made it clear that they are very uncomfortable with that.  He's so mean to them.  But I hung in there because I like Barack Obama and I think he's smart, and I kept hanging in there...until now. 

Look at this CNN story.  Look at it!
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/22/politics/honey-bees-protection/

That's right, Barack Hussein Obama wants to protect bees!  He's in the pocket of big insect!  Now I understand that it's hard to resist the bee lobby.  They don't even bribe you, they just sting you until you do what they want.  But that's still no excuse.  I elected Barack Obama to make the tough choices and not give in to political pressure or bee stinging pressure.  Save the bees?  Ugh, no wonder Republicans are talking more about impeachment these days. 

I can already hear you liberally whining about pollination and the food chain.  I have a solution for that.  Two words...robot bees.  Put tens of thousands of Americans to work building billions of robot bees which can be programmed to pollinate stuff while also not stinging everyone.  Or at least not stinging me, I don't really care what they do to the rest of you. 

Meanwhile, some nerd scientists can get to work on figuring out what's killing the bees so we can weaponize it and kill all the other insects.  They're sneaky and some of them can fly, and they can also be replaced by robots if they do anything useful.  Stop shaking your head at me, you know this is a good idea. 

So listen, I'm just going to say this, and if everyone in America wants to get behind me and turn it into a big national movement, I think that would be pretty great.  In the 2016 election, I promise my vote to any candidate from any party who is willing to play god and replace all of the insects with tiny robots programmed to not bother us (note: offer not valid for Rick Santorum).  We can call our group the Bee Party.  Who's with me?

NHL Uniform Manifesto Part 3

Before we start, just a quick note about pointless outdoor hockey.  Pointless outdoor hockey is pointless.  I like the Winter Classic.  It saves me from having to pretend to care about college football for three hours every New Years Day.  But like most things that happen once a year, once is enough.  I don't need random extra outdoor games.  I don't need the Rangers having to play outdoors twice in four days.  I definitely don't need an attempted outdoor hockey game in Los Angeles. 

Gary Bettman understands that ice is an important part of ice hockey, right?  And he also understands that ice is cold, right?  To be fair, I'm frequently confused by things that the NHL thinks are good ideas, like wearing dark uniforms at home, or having multiple Florida based teams.  Still, the stadium series seems particularly stupid and while I'm sure they made some extra money, I don't care about that a lot.

OK, let's get started...no wait, one more quick note on the stadium series.  The announcers have been intolerable.  It's like the only instruction NBC gave them for doing a hockey game at a baseball stadium was "Use a lot of baseball words, but use them to describe hockey things...people will love that shit."  I do not love that shit.  OK I'm done now.

Welcome to part 3 of my epic three part NHL uniform manifesto.  If you missed the first two parts, you really should go read them (Part 1 and Part 2) because without the first two parts, part 3 is just nonsense. 

10. New Jersey Devils
First Impression: 8
Classicyness: 6
Color Scheme: 4
Trend: 8
Logo/Mascot: 3
Total - 29

The Devils added black to their color profile a while ago, which is perfectly fine, but they also subtracted green, which is less fine.  Wouldn't the Devils look pretty great in green alternates with red and black trim?  I say yes.  Meanwhile, the logo looks nice at first glance, but the fact that the devil horns and tail don't fit in the circle has always bothered me.

The first impression score for New Jersey was a real roller coaster.  I've always hated watching the Devils play, because they've always been incredibly boring.  But on the other hand, I've sat literally three feet from the Devils' bench at the Nassau Coliseum on multiple occasions, and that was a shitload of fun.  Shitload of fun trumps neutral zone trap, so big points for first impression, but it wasn't easy. 

9. New York Rangers
First Impression: 7
Classicyness: 9
Color Scheme: 4
Trend: 4
Logo/Mascot: 6
Total - 30

Another emotional battle on first impression.  My mom likes the Rangers, but my grandmother taught me to be an Islander fan.  Meanwhile, the Rangers have been a model of mediocrity for as long as I can remember, and have never been that fun to watch.  The tie breaker here was a Ranger game I went to in college, or maybe grad school.  The song they play when the Rangers score is one of the most fun sports things I've ever seen.

Everything else about the Rangers is great, except, once again, a darker shade of blue is ruining my life.  The blue on the regular home jerseys is borderline tolerable, but the alternate is even darker.  How good would the Rangers look in a red alternate?  Another missed opportunity, and another jersey ruined by inexplicable dark blue.  Having said all that, the Rangers' jerseys are undeniably classic and almost landed the first 10 I've given out, but not quite, because, to be honest, I just don't like them very much.

8. St. Louis Blues
First Impression: 9
Classicyness: 6
Color Scheme: 7
Trend: 2
Logo/Mascot: 8
Total - 32

I wanted a Brett Hull Blues jersey so much at one point when I was a kid, and I'm like 99% sure my parents got me one.  How dare the Blues change those jerseys?!?  And they added a DARKER BLUE alternate?  I know St. Louis' trend isn't as bad as some other teams that got higher scores, but I'm so mad at them right now that I don't care.

Setting that aside for a second, I generally like the Blues' jerseys.  I think St. Louis was victimized more by the new Reebok uniforms than anyone else, but that's not entirely the team's fault.  Meanwhile, blue and gold are always a solid combo and I don't know about you, but I'm a big fan of the blue note logo.  I'm not sure if Blues makes a lot of sense for St. Louis, but it just sort of sounds right. 

7. New York Islanders
First Impression: 9
Classicyness: 8
Color Scheme: 6
Trend: 7
Logo/Mascot: 9
Total - 39

OK, let's start with the good stuff.  The Islanders are my childhood team.  All of my early hockey memories are Islander memories, and they're mostly good.  On top of that, out of all the possible color schemes, I think blue and orange might be my favorite.  Islanders might be a little too close to Shelbyville Shelbyvillians for my taste, but I'm giving them a pass on the lazy name because the logo is really nice and looks great on a jersey.  High marks all around for the regular Islander jerseys, which may very well have come in at #1 overall it wasn't for...

...those alternates.  Here are just some of the problems with the Islander alternates, aside from just being incredibly ugly:
1) Every time they're wearing the offending alternates, they aren't wearing their awesome regular jerseys.
2) Where did the weird grey/silver come from?
3) They never bothered designing alternate helmets, so they still wear the regular blue home helmets with the alternates and it looks ridiculous. 
4) Even the Islanders don't exactly know what color their alternates are.  I've heard the announcers who do the Islander games discussing whether they're black or very dark blue.
5) Of all the teams who should be doing a third jersey in their third color, the Islanders top the list.  The Islanders' third jersey should just be the regular home jersey with the blue and orange inverted. 

I could go on and on and on and on.  The Islanders lost at least one point in every category because of these monstrosities.  I can't stand them.  I literally turn off Islander games when I see them wearing the alternates.  I understand why people still talk about the Islanders' mid-90s fisherman uniforms, but these are honestly 100 times worse.  The fisherman wasn't even the problem on those, it was the new colors and the strange wavy lines.  I wouldn't even mind black alternates in the same design as the regular uniforms...ugh, I need to move on.

6. Toronto Maple Leafs
First Impression: 5
Classicyness: 10
Color Scheme: 7
Trend: 8
Logo/Mascot: 10
Total - 40

Toronto is the first team to score full marks in any category, and they did it twice!  I know a classic uniform when I see one, and the Maple Leafs, I mean, I almost gave them an 11 for classicyness.  Logo/Mascot is just as good.  The logo looks great on the jerseys and Maple Leafs is just perfect.  It's basically saying "Hi, we're from Canada, eh", but in team moniker form.  Just terrific. 

Normally I would be a little more negative on the color scheme.  Blue and white isn't exactly lighting the world on fire, but the Maple Leafs date back to like 1917.  The world only had like 5 colors back then, using three of them would have been selfish. 

First impression is really the only weak score.  I've been watching hockey for about 34 years now, and I can't ever remember Toronto being good, or fun to watch, or generating any real reaction from me at all except for the occasional "hey, they're from Canada, that's fun!"  But even that response is muted.  Toronto is the least Canada-y of all the Canadian hockey cities.  They even have an NBA team.

5. Edmonton Oilers
First Impression: 9
Classicyness: 8
Color Scheme: 7
Trend: 8
Logo/Mascot: 9
Total - 41

Hey, speaking of blue and orange, it's the Oilers!  High marks all around, including an 8 for trend as a reward for correcting some mistaken adventures in the late 90s.  I think the logo is my favorite part (well, that and the orange), I'm not sure why, I just sort of like it.  You also have to remember that the Oilers were very fun to watch for a long time, even if they're a little very very bad now.  Plus, they're from Edmonton, which is fun.

Edmonton didn't finish 1st, because I have to be fair about all of this, but they're probably my favorite set of uniforms.  I really can't complain about anything, although I certainly wouldn't mind an orange alternate in Edmonton.  I can live without it though. 

4. Boston Bruins
First Impression: 10
Classicyness: 10
Color Scheme: 6
Trend: 7
Logo/Mascot: 9
Total - 42

The Bruins make me smile, and talk about classicyness!  The Bruins just look like a hockey team.  I'm not crazy about black and gold as a color scheme, but Boston uses it about as correctly as possible.  And those logos are just fantastic.  Who could argue with the spoked B?

As much as I love the spoked B, I had to take one point off for logo/mascot because, well, I don't think they have a lot of bears around Boston.  I live about two hours away.  The woods around my apartment building have deer, raccoons, skunks and possibly coyotes (I don't believe it, but people in my building swear they've seen coyotes)...no bears though.

I took the most points off color scheme and trend for some failed experiments in alternates, as well as some improper use of the color scheme.  Children, what have we learned about third jerseys when a team has three colors in its profile?  That's right, the third jersey should be the third color.  I'd prefer it if Boston would just skip the alternates altogether, they don't need them.  But if they insist on having one, it needs to be yellow.  Most egregious though, was Boston's ill-fated attempt at an alternate logo.  You know how I feel about that.

3. Detroit Red Wings
First Impression: 8
Classicyness: 10
Color Scheme: 7
Trend: 10
Logo/Mascot: 10
Total - 45

I have no idea what a Red Wing is, but the winged wheel logo is so perfect for Detroit that I literally don't care.  And Detroit was another almost 11 for classicyness.  The biggest change to the Red Wings' uniform in the last 80 years appears to have been centering the logo.  As far as I can tell, the Red Wings have never even attempted an alternate, and why would they?  That kind of loyalty earns you a 10 for trend. 

The two color scheme is the only thing keeping Detroit out of the top slot.  Well, that and the fact that I've never really liked watching the Red Wings that much.  I'm not sure why, but I think maybe they were just really bad for a while when I was a kid.  They got better, but my brain had already permanently filed them in the blah category by then.

2. Montreal Canadians
First Impression: 10
Classicyness: 10
Color Scheme: 8
Trend: 9
Logo/Mascot: 10
Total - 47

Montreal actually tied for first, and you would think the tie would go to the Canadian team, but they're French Canadian so that doesn't really count.  Having said that, I love Montreal's uniforms.  The red, white and blue color scheme makes perfect sense for French Canada and the logo is super cool.  Like Detroit, Montreal hasn't even bothered with alternates and, again, why would they? 

Montreal lost some trend points for screwing around a little bit more than Detroit, but not that much more.  And the color scheme, while it does make perfect sense, is a little boring and not my favorite.  Still, a tie for first is nothing to be ashamed of. 

1. Chicago Blackhawks
First Impression: 10
Classicyness: 10
Color Scheme: 9
Trend: 8
Logo/Mascot: 10
Total - 47

I gave Chicago a pass on the whole "is the mascot insensitive?" question because I honestly don't think it is.  On a 1-10 scale of insensitivity, 1 being completely non-offensive and 10 being Washington Redskins (which, in my mind, is basically the same thing as calling a team the Washington Black People...or worse), I'd put Blackhawks at a tepid 1.5.  No warrior stereotypes, no ridiculous references to skin color, just Blackhawks and a happy looking mascot with some feathers in his hair.  You can be offended if you want, I'm not. 

But here's why Chicago wins.  I gave Detroit and Montreal big points for not screwing around with alternates since their regular uniforms are so great, so for Chicago to try an alternate is a real high wire act, and they pulled it off.  Chicago's alternates were either throwbacks (which I didn't love but are clearly acceptable) or a perfect copy of their regular uniforms, only in their third color.  That's all I've been asking for this whole time, and even though Chicago dumped those alternates and went back to just two jerseys, it was great while it lasted, and that's why Chicago wins.

NHL Uniform Manifesto Part 2

Welcome back for part 2 of my three part NHL uniform manifesto.  Part one was the bottom third, so aside from a few bright spots, everything was pretty much terrible.  As we get into the second group, I won't need to spend as much time thinking of synonyms for the word atrocious, and we'll actually be looking at some decent jerseys before the end of part 2.  If you haven't read part 1, you'll want to go back and check it out for descriptions of the categories and also because that's a third of the whole thing and why would you skip it?

20. Philadelphia Flyers
First Impression: 7
Classicyness: 5
Color Scheme: 3
Trend: 3
Logo/Mascot: 6
Total - 24

The Flyers are easily the biggest disappointment on the list.  Anyone who knows my feelings about uniforms, and colors in general, knows that I'm a sucker for orange.  And the Flyers have so much orange.  And yet, when I look at the Flyers' jerseys, I feel nothing but disappointment.  First of all, the orange on the home jerseys doesn't have a border, it just crashes recklessly into the white on the shoulders and sleeves and sucks all the goodness out of the orange.  The away jerseys are a little better, but the white jerseys from the 80's were even better-er.  And then there's the weird nameplates.  Why do you have to be special Philadelphia?? 

Nothing makes me angrier than squandering orange, and it's too bad, because there's a lot to like here.  The logo is cool, and I don't know what a flyer is, but it sounds fun.  Philadelphia also corrected the mistake of going completely away from orange jerseys for a while.  If I was writing this in 2001, this section would be filled with bad words.  You had orange jerseys and you voluntarily gave them away?  Are you monsters?  Still, a spot in the bottom half is so disappointing for the team that features more orange than anyone else.  It didn't have to be this way Philadelphia.

19. Buffalo Sabres
First Impression: 6
Classicyness: 7
Color Scheme: 2
Trend: 3
Logo/Mascot: 6
Total - 24

Kudos to the Sabres for going back to their really nice classic logo, and for going almost all the way back to their classic look.  But, once again, the lure of a darker blue has ruined an otherwise perfectly good uniform.  What is it about navy blue that teams like so much?  Can they not see how much worse it is than regular blue?  I can see it, and it makes me sad.

Buffalo gets effort points for attempting a yellow alternate this year, but they also lose plenty of points for the troubling execution of said alternates.  Those yellow alternates could be great, but in reality they are horrifying.  Everything is wrong.  The oddly thick white border between the yellow and the navy blue, the fact that the navy blue is still there, the fact that the front is yellow but the back is still blue.  They look like the kind of uniform I would have drawn and sent into a Sports Illustrated for Kids contest when I was six.  This is especially egregious since the previous alternates were actually pretty nice.  What a mess.

18. Minnesota Wild
First Impression: 5
Classicyness: 8
Color Scheme: 6
Trend: 6
Logo/Mascot: -1
Total - 24

Look, you can name your team after anything.  Things, animals, weather phenomena.  I'll even accept random words that only mean something in your state (I don't know what a Hoosier is, but I'm positive people in Indiana do).  What I will not tolerate is a team name that is clearly an adjective.  Don't try to tell me that it's a noun referring to the wild of Minnesota.  The word for that is wilderness, and if you think Minnesota Wilderness is a stupid team name, then you should understand that Minnesota Wild is even stupider.  To be honest, -1 was generous.

This mess with the logo/mascot is a real shame because I like everything else Minnesota is doing.  The colors are nice (red and green, but not Christmasy) and the uniforms look pretty cool, especially for a newer team.  The alternates are a little dull, but I still kind of like them.  And it's just nice to have a team back in Minnesota.  So much to like, but if you name your team the Wild, 18th is about the best you can do.

17. Colorado Avalanche
First Impression: 6
Classicyness: 2
Color Scheme: 4
Trend: 6
Logo/Mascot: 7
Total - 25

Like Lightning, Avalanche is a fun team name and I imagine avalanches happen pretty frequently in Colorado.  And even if they don't, they do in my imagination and that's all that really matters.  The logo is halfway decent too.  I mean, it isn't great, but I'll take it.  I'll also take the alternate jersey, since it follows my simple philosophy that states "if you're going to have a third jersey, it should really be a third color".  Speaking of color, I don't love the burgundy, but I don't hate it either.

Colorado suffered in classicyness for stealing the Quebec team, and those Nordiques uniforms were pretty sweet, but Colorado should have a hockey team too, so they didn't get penalized as much as some of the other thieves on the list.  One bonus first impression point for being the jersey Ray Bourque finally won a Stanley Cup in.

16. Pittsburgh Penguins
First Impression: 7
Classicyness: 4
Color Scheme: 6
Trend: 3
Logo/Mascot: 5
Total - 25

Pittsburgh is a team on a slow downward trend.  They corrected the logo mistake they made in the early 90's, but the new, uglier gold they're using is a problem.  The old brighter yellow/gold really went toe to toe with the black.  This new gold just sort of hides behind it.  The Penguins also appear to have dumped those perfectly pleasant light blue alternates.  Boooo!

To be fair though, Pittsburgh's uniforms still have a lot of charm.  The penguin logo is really fun and even though the gold isn't as good as it used to be, black and gold is still a solid combination.  Plus, the Penguins have almost always been fun to watch, so that's nice.

15. Calgary Flames
First Impression: 6
Classicyness: 5
Color Scheme: 7
Trend: 3
Logo/Mascot: 4
Total - 25

I know what you're going to say.  Flames makes no sense for Calgary and I should be angrier about that.  You have to remember two things.  1) The visual of a giant flaming C over the coat of snow that I assume covers Calgary 365 days a year is fun and 2) shut up.  Calgary also gets a bonus first impression point for being a Canadian team that was stolen from an American city where hockey is pointless.  We've tried Atlanta twice now, that should really be enough.

I let the Flames off easy on trend because I'm generally a fan of adding a little black to uniforms, but this particular addition of black destroyed a work of art.  I loved the Flames' old uniforms.  Loved 'em.  I think it's the black logo on the home uniform that really gets me.  Where have you seen a black flame?  Where??  Nowhere, that's where.  Red and bright gold were such a good team for Calgary, why mess with greatness?  And then they brought back the old design as an alternate just to take it away again.  It's just depressing, let's move on.

14. San Jose Sharks
First Impression: 6
Classicyness: 3
Color Scheme: 5
Trend: 5
Logo/Mascot: 7
Total - 26

Sharks always make a good mascot, and apparently they have something to do with the San Jose area, so that's solid all the way around.  I don't love the teal, but kudos to the Sharks for trying something a little different.  And, again, when your third jersey is a third color, that's going to earn you some points.

I read on the internet that the Sharks changed their uniforms for this season to have less stuff on them because reducing the amount of stuff on the jerseys would make them lighter and improve the team's performance.  I have no idea if that's true, but if the story is true, you have to commend the Sharks for employing the most creative nonsense I've seen in any jersey history.  Kudos.

13. Dallas Stars
First Impression: 5
Classicyness: 3
Color Scheme: 6
Trend: 8
Logo/Mascot: 5
Total - 27

Stars for Dallas.  I don't love it, I don't hate it.  But why can't they be the Lone Stars?  Like all the other thieves, Dallas lost classicyness points for stealing a team from a better hockey city, but Minnesota has a new team now and while the old North Stars uniforms were terrific in their own way, they weren't my favorite. 

Big trend points for Dallas.  This franchise has had some real adventures in uniforms since moving from Minnesota, but I really think they have something with the new uniforms this year.  I like the green, and while it's a little simple for my taste, Texans are pretty simple, so it's a good fit.

12. Nashville Predators
First Impression: 4
Classicyness: 3
Color Scheme: 7
Trend: 7
Logo/Mascot: 6
Total - 27

If I'm going to penalize Pittsburgh for going from a nice bright gold to a dull and boring gold, then I have to reward the Predators for moving in the opposite direction.  Nashville's first attempt at yellow jerseys was really more of a mustard, yuck.  But a few years ago Nashville showed up with the brightest, most blinding jerseys in the league, and I'm a fan.  I don't even mind that Nashville's blue is sort of a navy blue, because you can't really see it anyway.

Logo/mascot was a struggle here.  I like Predators as a team name, I really do, but what is that on the logo?  Is that a saber-toothed tiger?  You know those are extinct, right?  I would also like to meet the person who thought "You know where we should put a hockey team?  Tennessee!" and the guy who responded to that thought with "Yes! You are so right about that!"

11. Los Angeles Kings
First Impression: 5
Classicyness: 5
Color Scheme: 6
Trend: 5
Logo/Mascot: 7
Total - 28

Sometime in the late 80's, the Kings went from Lakers colors (makes perfect sense, identify your new hockey team with the town's most successful franchise) to Raiders colors (umm, what?).  I don't mind silver and black, but the nomadic Raiders aren't even in LA anymore, and it's not like nobody saw that coming.  The Kings silver and black uniforms are perfectly adequate, but purple and gold is just fun, and everyone knows royalty wears purple.

Recently, the Kings have introduced a new alternate jersey that looks a lot like their old purple and gold deals, and I'm obviously a big fan.  This helped them a lot with what would have otherwise been a pretty weak trend score, and bumped classicyness up to average as well.  I should have deducted points for stealing Wayne Gretzky from Canada, but I didn't because I never really liked Gretzky that much so I care very little about this.

That's it for part 2.  Tune in next time for the thrilling conclusion when we cover all three New York area teams (including the worst alternate uniforms in the history of uniforms, colors and vision) and we find out who's #1.

Another Round

You have to think the President is getting bored with this whole State of the Union thing.  You know at least once in the last week he sarcastically asked someone if he really has to do this every year.  I suggest he try breaking it up a little with some insult comedy:

"Good evening everybody...look at you weirdos.  I kid, I kid, but seriously folks, it's great to be here.  Paul Ryan's here tonight, give him a hand everybody.  Man looks like a muppet!  Haha, I kid Paul.  And Nancy Pelosi is here.  Nancy, why are you giving me the crazy eyes?  Oh that's right, that's just your face!  Zing!  I kid Nancy, she's the best..."

Here are some highlights from the pre-game:
1) Chris Matthews got through a whole sentence without saying the words Chris Christie.
2) Apparently there will be four Republican responses to tonight's speech.  Four.  Including one unsolicited response from Rand Paul on behalf of just Rand Paul.
3) Bill O'Reilly was yelling at someone.
4) Cory Booker arrived.  Booker 2016!!!

Most importantly, the President is going to announce that he's raising the minimum wage for government contractors.  That's fantastic.  You can't fix the whole economy by raising the minimum wage, and you certainly can't fix it by raising the minimum wage for just one group of people (though it is a big group), but the President, as the CEO of the federal government, is acting as a responsible employer.  Leadership by example, it's still a thing.

If the President is going to complain about Congress not doing anything (and I suspect he will continue to do that), then he has to be willing to do the things that he can do.  This is an example of a thing he can do and he deserves a lot of credit.  Especially since this wasn't some candy-ass 25 cents an hour raise. The minimum wage for government contractors is going up to $10.10 an hour.  That's not exactly ski trip money, but it might actually let people afford food every day.  I'm sure the Republicans will object.

And no, that isn't a cheap shot at Republicans.  If you oppose a raise in the comically low minimum wage while also supporting cuts to food stamps, then you don't give a shit about poor people being able to feed themselves.  Some things are really complicated, this isn't one of them.

9:04PM: The President's Cabinet has been entering the chamber for roughly 7 hours now.

9:05PM: Matthews says New York Congressman Peter King may run for President.  Please no.  I realize Peter King is what passes for a moderate Republican these days, but I promise you, he's still a crazy person.

9:06PM: By the way, I'm watching on MSNBC tonight just to see if they find ways to work Chris Christie into the actual speech.  I may switch over to CNN a few times just to check out whatever silly nonsense they're doing with graphics.

9:09PM: MSNBC has Al Sharpton on the pre-show panel, because that's necessary.  Also, it's 9:09PM and I'm still listening to the pre-show panel.  One year this speech is just going to be an hour and a half of people entering the chamber and then the Speaker saying goodnight.

9:10PM: Here comes the Prez!  Why is Eric Cantor always right behind him?  It makes me nervous.

9:11PM: The President is dishing out some pretty aggressive handshakes.  If you've got a hand, the President is going to shake it.

9:15PM: We started off with heart touching stories about hypothetical Americans doing hypothetical good things.  Today in America, the President stood up before Congress and said things that were probably true.

9:22PM: When the President says he's building ladders of opportunity into the middle class, that's not a metaphor.  Congress will only fund him for ladders, so the President is going to send you one and you can do whatever you want with it to try and make more money.

9:24PM: The President just spent a minute praising someone in the audience named Michelle Obama.  I wonder if he knows her.  I know a certain President who's getting laid tonight.

9:25PM:  Boehner isn't wearing an American flag pin!  Why isn't he being arrested and questioned?

9:26PM: Closing loopholes in the tax code you say?  Man, that's a great idea! Why hasn't anyone thought of that before?

9:27PM: The Republicans will clap for anything they don't have to do.

9:29PM: Did you know that small business owners are the greatest people in the history of the Universe?

9:30PM: Quick shot of David Vitter looking bored.  The State of the Union address is the longest amount of time each year that he has to go without a prostitute.

9:32PM: Biden and Boehner are exchanging fart jokes while the President talks about natural gas.

9:37PM: I swear I could watch Biden and Boehner for hours and never get bored.  The President just said he's appointing Biden to do something about job training.  Biden responded by looking at Boehner and shrugging his shoulders, then they both laughed about it.  What were they saying?  I have no idea, but I bet it was unintentionally hilarious.

9:38PM: After disarming everyone by mentioning Biden, the President quickly hammered Congress for cutting off long term unemployment insurance.  But the Congress has a good point here, unemployed people don't need money.  Food and housing are free, right?

9:43PM: The President points out that last year he asked Congress to make pre-K education available to everyone, and he's asking this year, because that shit didn't happen last year, and it isn't going to.  To be honest, I still don't see the appeal.  I think I learned to count in nursery school, but I suspect I would have figured that out on my own eventually.

9:46PM: "a mother deserves a day off to care for a sick child...and a father does too".  Look at the President being all gender inclusive and shit.  Next year he's going to try saying that line without it sounding like he almost forgot to add the part about the father and then just barely remembered it at the last second.

9:49PM: Here comes the part about raising the minimum wage.  This is such a no-brainer, but still only gets a sarcastic smirk from Boehner.  It's really a shame that both parties can't at least get together on this.  If you wonder why people are so cynical about government, this is a perfect example.  535 eight year olds could agree on raising the minimum wage, but that's only because there are no eight year old lobbyists....yet.

9:55PM: The President is openly challenging Republicans to come up with a health care reform idea of their own, and mocking their 40+ repeal votes.  Sarcastic and slightly mean Obama is by far my favorite Obama.

9:58PM: The President is in favor of calling your mom.  In about an hour, tea party Republican Mike Lee will tell you why calling your mom is an un-American part of the liberal feminazi agenda.

10:00PM: Congress will do anything they can to stop gun violence, as long as it doesn't in any way involve gun control.  I've come around to the sad conclusion that it's more likely Congress will fund buying a bullet-proof vest for every American than it is that they'll actually do something about guns, and I think the President has too.  He didn't hang around on gun control for too long.

10:03PM: Allow me to summarize the foreign policy part of every State of the Union since about 2002: "something something men and women in uniform...clap clap clap...ever vigilant...clap clap clap...ending whatever war we're currently fighting...clap clap clap...diplomacy...clap clap clap...nuclear and chemical weapons are bad...clap clap clap...Israel non sequitur...clap clap clap".

10:09PM: We seem overly concerned about Iran.  The President spent 15 seconds talking about gun violence in America, and half of that was Democrats clapping.  He spent at least 4 minutes talking about Iran.  Do you think Iran is 16 times more important then thousands of Americans being killed by other Americans?  I don't.

10:14PM: Republicans are all about helping veterans as long as they don't have to help them buy food.

10:16PM: I think we're coming in for a landing here, we've reached the touching human interest story part of the speech.  I'll give the President some credit though, he's not talking about some clown who opened a small business, he's talking about a veteran who appears to have had a hole blown in the side of his head.  Now that's a guy you point to during a speech!  That dude literally gave large pieces of himself for his country.  He got a two minute standing ovation.  Well deserved.

10:20PM: Chris Matthews immediately declared the speech "masterful".  Quick switch to Fox and the first word I heard from Charles Krauthammer was "embarrassing".  Cable news is fun.

10:26PM: I'm going to try and stick around for the Republican response, being given by Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who I have literally never heard of.  Apparently she's the highest ranking Republican woman in the House, so that's partially my bad.  But it's also partially MSNBC and Fox's bad because I watch a ton cable news and I've never once heard either network mention the highest ranking Republican woman in the House.

10:30PM: So far I've learned that Cathy McMorris Rodgers has three kids and used to work at McDonald's.  Not to be a dick, but if she was a dude would Fox feel the need to tell me how many kids she has?  Also, some guy on Fox just told me she's not the most polished speaker on Congress, which is sort of like when a guy gets picked in the NBA draft and the ESPN guys say he needs to work on his athleticism.

10:32PM: Brett Baier wouldn't shut up in time for Congresswoman Rodgers to start talking, so I missed her first sentence.  Didn't somebody tell her a man was still talking?

10:34PM: This is like some sort of middle-America nightmare speech.  I've already heard about apple picking and a county fair.

10:36PM: "Hi, I'm Cathy McMorris Rodgers and I apparently have no interest in actually responding to what the President just said so let me tell you my entire life story".

10:38PM: Republicans are working on a step by step immigration plan.  For those of you who aren't familiar with politics, that means doing all of the steps they want to do first and then forgetting about the other steps.

10:41PM: Hey, this lady seems perfectly reasonable.  Can somebody find out if she'd like to run for President?  Sure, she said god a lot, but so does every Republican.  In general, she seems not dumb and would definitely be a better option than Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Rand Paul.  The speech was sort of blah, but she was pretty solid.

OK, that's it.  This gets a little less fun every year, but that's only because nothing ever changes and we pretty much have the same problems every year, and that's not really my fault.

NHL Uniform Manifesto Part 1

Those of you who read this blog sometimes, or even just read my Facebook status updates, are familiar with my fairly strong opinions regarding hockey uniforms.  Who can explain my obsession with hockey uniforms?  Certainly not me.  I don't know why I care so much.  Uniforms in other sports make almost no impression on me.  I barely even notice baseball uniforms.  Maybe it's how the colors look against the ice.  That's a theory.

Anyway, I decided to take this strange obsession and turn it into something useful.  Maybe useful isn't the right word.  Entertaining might be a little bit of a reach.  Interesting.  I think interesting is fair.  Here's how it works.  I ranked each team's set of uniforms on a 1-10 scale in five separate categories (which I've helpfully explained below).  I then ranked all 30 teams in order of the total scores, starting at the bottom because who starts at the top?  Not me, that's who. 

First Impression: This is the most comprehensive category.  This category is about my gut reaction when I turn on a hockey game and see a team's uniforms.  This covers general visual appeal, but also my own personal reaction.  Do a team's uniforms remind me of my childhood and simpler days?  Do a team's uniforms remind me of someone who makes me smile, or someone who makes me want to punch everybody?  Has a team been fun to watch over the years? All of these things will influence a team's score in this category.

Classicyness: That's not really a word, but you understand what I'm getting at.  Is a team's uniform classic?  If a team does have a classic uniform, how much or how little have they stupidly screwed around with it over the years?  If a franchise is newer, did they take the time to design a classic-looking uniform, or are they subjecting us to some new age looking disaster?

Color Scheme: This category not only includes the colors a team uses, but how they use them.  Just because you're using a lot of orange doesn't mean you're using it correctly, OK?  I'm looking at you Philadelphia.

Trend: This is probably the most simple category, but also possibly the most important.  In what direction is a team's look trending?  Do their current uniforms look better or worse than the last version?  Is the franchise learning, or just getting worse?  Also, how often are they changing?  Some teams just need to settle down.

Logo/Mascot: Most hockey jerseys feature the team's logo and/or mascot right in the middle of the jersey, so this is a very important piece of the puzzle.  Any team that doesn't feature a logo on the jersey will be dealt with on a case by case basis.  For example, the Rangers' jerseys don't really feature a logo, but that's because the Rangers' jerseys date back to the to 30s or 40s and they were too busy dealing with nazis and polio back then to worry about logos.  So even without a logo, the Rangers will get more points in this category than, say, the Minnesota Wild, who do a have a logo on their jerseys, but it's a stupid logo because wild is a fucking adjective.

Other things to keep in mind:
-Teams are responsible for all jerseys.  For example, the Islanders' two regular jerseys would rate a 10 in more than one category.  But the Islanders don't have just two jerseys, do they?
-It wouldn't be fair to punish any one team for wearing dark jerseys at home, since the NHL makes them all do it, but just be aware that the NHL as a whole gets minus 1,000,000,000 points for this.
-Ties were broken by the classicyness category because I said so.
-30 teams made this way too long, so I'm breaking it up into 3 parts for your sanity.
-I realize that it might be better if I put pictures of the uniforms with each team so you could see what I'm talking about.  Unfortunately, I'm not great at the internet and I'm not sure how to do that.  Plus, pictures would take up a lot of space and make this even longer.  Here's a website I suggest using as a reference http://www.nhluniforms.com/

OK here we go...this was pretty fun for me.

30. Florida Panthers
First Impression: 1
Classicyness: 2
Color Scheme: 2
Trend: 3
Logo/Mascot: 2
Total - 10

Obviously we have a lot of problems here.  Florida's primary colors are a combination of red and a strange dark blue that nobody should ever have to look at.  Meanwhile, they've got perfectly good gold in their color profile that they're barely using at all.  Also, the first impression is terrible because I know Florida shouldn't have a hockey team, and it certainly shouldn't have two.  I've decided to blame the Panthers more for this than the Lightning, who we'll get to soon enough.

Florida would have done a lot worse than an already pathetic 2 in the logo/mascot category if I hadn't used the internet to find out that there are actually panthers in Florida.  Unfortunately, it seems as though there are only about 200 of them, so it's sort of like the hockey franchise is taunting the poor endangered panthers.  That's better than a completely nonsensical mascot, but not much better.

29. Anaheim Ducks
First Impression: 3
Classicyness: 2
Color Scheme: 4
Trend: 4
Logo/Mascot: 0
Total - 13

These people named their team after a movie.  I don't really know what to say about that, but suffice to say 0 was generous in the logo/mascot category.  Narrative descriptions of the Ducks' color scheme over the years include words like eggplant and jade, but I went easy on them in this category because they appear to be trying to straighten it out a little.  That's also why they did moderately well in the trend category.

It's worth mentioning that Anaheim is a perfect example of a team that needs to settle down a little bit.  The number of different uniforms this franchise has blasted through in just 20 years is unconscionable, and most of the changes haven't even been for the better. 

28. Carolina Hurricanes
First Impression: 2
Classicyness: -2
Color Scheme: 6
Trend: 4
Logo/Mascot: 4
Total - 14

I pounded Carolina in the classicyness category because they stole the Whalers from Hartford and murdered those wonderful Whalers uniforms in the process.  This could have been a lot worse, but the Whalers got a little off track with their uniforms in the five or so years before they left Connecticut, so I don't miss them as much as I should.

Too bad about the theft and murder, because I actually don't mind the Hurricanes' uniforms.  Red and black isn't the most creative color scheme ever, but it's perfectly acceptable and I like a good monochromatic home uniform as much as anybody.  Hurricanes is another team name that feels a little taunty to me, but I'll allow it for now.

27. Ottawa Senators
First Impression: 2
Classicyness: 3
Color Scheme: 5
Trend: 2
Logo/Mascot: 3
Total - 15

Ottawa's alternates cost them points all over the place.  For a while, the Senators had a perfectly acceptable black alternate that was actually better than their regular dark uniform.  Now Ottawa's alternates are some kind of stripey nightmare.  That costs you points for bad trend and improper use of color scheme.  Improper use of colors is a general problem with Ottawa, which is too bad because I like red and black as a color scheme, but the Senators just can't get it right, or even close.

You'd think I'd give Ottawa more points for logo/mascot, but you'd be wrong.  Yes, Senators makes sense for a capital city, but that logo is ugly and frightening, and also reminds you that, just like Florida, they have gold in their color profile that they refuse to use.

26. Phoenix Coyotes
First Impression: 5
Classicyness: 0
Color Scheme: 6
Trend: 3
Logo/Mascot: 4
Total - 18

I really enjoy the desert red that the Coyotes and Diamondbacks use.  Not too bright, not too dull, and the Coyotes use it generously.  Also, whenever I see the Coyotes on TV I'm immediately reminded of the awesome white outs they do during the playoffs (which made a hell of a lot more sense when the home team was wearing white). 

On the other hand, The Coyotes have a long history of atrocious alternate uniforms which have frequently included alternate logos.  Alternate logos are just ridiculous and should be immediately outlawed.  Also, Phoenix loses big points for the same reason Carolina did, stealing the Jets from Winnipeg and murdering the classic Jets uniforms everyone loved.  The only reason that score isn't lower than 0 is I don't know if the Coyotes wouldn't let the new Winnipeg franchise use the old uniforms or if the new Winnipeg franchise never asked.  If I find out they asked and Phoenix said no, this score goes to -100 and they lose forever.

25. Columbus Blue Jackets
First Impression: 3
Classicyness: 4
Color Scheme: 5
Trend: 5
Logo/Mascot: 1
Total - 18

Columbus was tough for me.  I give them credit for being a new team and taking the time to design some normal looking uniforms.  I also sort of like their new alternates, which are pretty nice, but if you're going to have a red, white and blue color scheme and your regular dark jersey is blue, shouldn't your alternate be red?  I mean, that just makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is A) having a team in Columbus in the first place and B) calling a team the Blue Jackets.  Apparently the Blue Jackets' name has something to do with the Civil War.  All that tells me is that there's nothing unique about Columbus (because every state that existed in 1860 has a Civil War history and you don't see them naming hockey teams after it) and that nothing interesting has happened in Columbus since 1865.  You can't just put a team between Cincinnati and Cleveland and expect people from both cities to instantly become fans of the team.  Does the NHL know how big Ohio is?  I once drove from Cleveland to Cincinnati.  It took like 5 hours and there's literally nothing between Columbus and Cincinnati.  This was a bad plan for an expansion team, is what I'm saying.

24. Vancouver Canucks
First Impression: 4
Classicyness: 6
Color Scheme: 5
Trend: 1
Logo/Mascot: 3
Total - 19

Vancouver should be ashamed of themselves for being the first not that new team on the list, especially since this is all about bad decisions.  I may be the only person who feels this way, but I really liked the late 80s/early 90s Canucks uniforms.  Black, red and yellow, used pretty well.  I was a fan.  Then all of a sudden they went back to their green and blue uniforms from when the team first started out.  I gave them fair classicyness points for that, but they lost major trend points for going backwards instead of forward into the colorful future.

And then there's the logo.  Apparently the whale has something to do with the Canucks' corporate overlords, but that's not my problem.  They aren't the Vancouver Whales.  I do like the hockey stick logo on the alternates, so they salvaged a few points for logo, but just a few, and I was being generous because they're Canadian.

23. Tampa Bay Lightning
First Impression: 3
Classicyness: 6
Color Scheme: 2
Trend: 2
Logo/Mascot: 7
Total - 20

Another relatively new team in uniforms that look like hockey uniforms, that's a good start.  I like the logo too.  It looks good on a jersey, and I don't know if they have a lot of lightning in Tampa, but I bet they probably do.  Either way, lightning is a cool team name. 

Unfortunately, Tampa's downward trending color scheme is a real problem.  Black, blue and white is boring to begin with, but replacing the old perfectly acceptable black uniforms with their current incredibly dull blue uniforms was a major mistake.  And don't even get me started on the alternates.  I just finished telling you how much I like your team name and now you're too lazy to write out the whole word on your alternate jerseys? 

22. Washington Capitals
First Impression: 6
Classicyness: 2
Color Scheme: 7
Trend: 4
Logo/Mascot: 3
Total - 22

Washington's trend score was a real battle for me.  On one hand, I love their relatively new throwback alternates, and the current regular uniforms are much better than the disasters the Capitals broke out in the late 90s.  Having said that, today's uniforms are still worse than Washington's classic uniforms, so the long term trend is unmistakably bad.  One extra point off for inexplicably using a darker blue than they used to, which will always cost you points with me.

I do like the color scheme, if only they would give up on the navy blue.  I also don't hate the logo as much as the logo score would suggest, but it just seems sort of lazy to me, and the font is strange too.  If they had just gone back to their regular old uniforms we wouldn't be having any of these problems.  Washington's uniforms aren't terrible, but they could be so much better and that's why they're in the bottom third.

21. Winnipeg Jets
First Impression: 6
Classicyness: 5
Color Scheme: 3
Trend: 5
Logo/Mascot: 4
Total - 23

Speaking of lazy logos, Winnipeg's jerseys feature a jet flying over a maple leaf.  A little on the nose, don't you think?  The logo looks nice on the jersey though, so it's not so bad.  And the jerseys are pretty solid for a new team.  If I knew for sure why they weren't just using the classic Jets jerseys, and if I knew it was definitely Phoenix's fault, Winnipeg would get more points for classicyness.  But I don't know those things and if I had to guess I'd say it's more likely Winnipeg never asked Phoenix because they thought they had a better idea.  They thought wrong.

First impression is obviously above average because seeing a team back in Winnipeg is fantastic.  I'm not a fan of the color scheme though.  Two different shades of blue?  Come on, Canada.  You can do better than that. 

That's it for part 1.  Stayed tuned for part 2, which will include important topics like improper use of my favorite color, my feelings about Wayne Gretzky and more complaining about darker shades of blue. 

Insert Bridge Pun Here

You have to admit, it's at least possible that the media loves this Chris Christie story so much because of the cornucopia of available bridge related puns.  Chris Matthews could lead his show with this story every day for three weeks (and he might) and never use the same silly segment title twice.  Bridge Over Troubled Water, Bridge to Nowhere, Bridge to 2016, Bridge-et Jones' Diary of New Jersey Political Revenge...it goes on and on.

Assuming that isn't the reason, and I'm not saying that's a safe assumption, I suppose I can see other reasons the media would find this so fascinating.  First of all,  this is a perfect Chris Christie story.  If six months ago you told me something was going to happen that would reflect negatively upon Governor Christie, and that the nature of the situation would be not even a little bit surprising based on what I already knew about Governor Christie, and then you asked me to guess what was going to happen, my guess would have come pretty close to the mark.  Like if I told you that Chris Christie was going to use sanitation trucks to block the Outerbridge Crossing indefinitely because he didn't like how Staten Island was looking at him, you would have to at least think about it a little before you decided not to believe me. 

I also have a hard time believing Christie didn't know anything about this until last week.  He doesn't exactly seem like the kind of guy staffers go rogue on.  The most I'd be willing to believe is that his staff did it without him knowing and then told him about it as a present, like a cat showing up in your doorway with a dead mouse.  If that was his story, I'd probably believe him, even though it's a little hard for me to believe that his staff ever gets him a present that isn't a meatball sandwich.

Having said all that, MSNBC can't possibly expect people to care about this, like in reality.  Sure it's fun and distracting for a little while, but they can't honestly think that people will go to a voting both in 2016 and think "I really like Chris Christie as a candidate, but there was that one time he caused traffic, better vote for Hillary."  That scenario seems highly unlikely to me. 

You have to understand that so much of the national media is based in New York, and some of them commute from northern Jersey.  Traffic on the G.W. Bridge may seem like a ridiculously huge story to them, but I have a hard time picturing people in Ohio caring.  They don't have traffic in the Midwest.  I'm not even sure they have traffic lights in the South yet, or lights in general for that matter. 

Sidenote: If I ever have to go south of Virginia for some reason (please no, it's so hot down there), I'll probably just delete everything I've ever written to be safe.

And I certainly can't picture it hurting Christie in the primaries.  I don't see a lot of Midwestern Republicans thinking "Christie seems like the best candidate, but he was pretty mean to New Jersey Democrats so I guess I'm voting for Rick Santorum".  If this story has any impact in the primaries it'll probably kill for Christie with the tea people.  If Ted Cruz shut down a bridge in a liberal city just to be a dick the tea people would throw him a parade.

Meanwhile, if the liberals in the media are trying to hurt Christie and help Hillary with this, I think they couldn't be further off the mark.  I can't even watch Fox for fun anymore because I get so angry when one of them mentions Benghazi or the IRS "scandal" that I want to throw things at my television, and I don't want to pay for a new TV right now.  Liberals and the media have been doing a fantastic job of ignoring these fake Republican scandals, but you can't continue knocking Republicans for making up nonsense scandals if you start making up nonsense scandals of your own.  You're giving up the high ground and saying that making up scandals to smear the other party is a perfectly acceptable form of journalism.  It isn't. 

I'm not a Christie supporter, and I've said I'm probably only voting for him if he winds up running against Hillary Clinton, who I will not vote for, but I'll probably vote for every other Democrat over Chris Christie.  I'm not downplaying this because he's my guy.  This isn't a scandal.  It's stupid and sort of interesting, and I'm sure people in Fort Lee were really inconvenienced (although they already live in New Jersey so they should be used to disappointment, and four hours of traffic is only like a half hour more than normal), but it's not a deal breaker. 

You know how many politicians are currently plotting revenge on anyone who even slightly wronged them?  All of them!  They're all egomaniacs, presidential candidates especially.  Do you really think that people who believe that god told them to be President wouldn't take an opportunity to get some revenge on anyone who stood in their way?  Chris Christie got caught because his staff is very stupid.  How hard would it have been to actually do a fake traffic study?  And how long before everyone finally learns that if you're going to do something you aren't supposed to be doing you can't talk about it in an email?  A little longer I guess.

My only point is that my opinion of Chris Christie isn't any different now than it was a month ago.  If your opinion is a lot different now, I have to think maybe you weren't paying a lot of attention to Chris Christie before now, because even in the worst case scenario, what happened here is pretty much exactly what I thought of Christie before this happened. 

He's not my favorite candidate, but I could certainly find worse Republicans.  In fact, I found five of them (plus Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul) and documented every debate they had for like a year.  You know what, I'm not sure any of those people from the 2012 primaries (except for Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul) could even successfully do what Christie might have done.  Disrupting a whole town for fun and revenge isn't a good thing, but if we could just get Christie to channel some of that competence into slightly more productive things, he'll already be the best Republican nominee since, I don't even know, Eisenhower?  I don't think I'm kidding about that.

I know some people will tell me I'm not understanding how big this really is, and how this isn't funny and how people's lives were effected and Chris Christie is a monster.  And I know I joke about New Jersey, but I actually don't have any problem with people from New Jersey.  I've known New Jersey people that I've legitimately loved.  I swear.  But about this bridge and traffic thing, I'm sorry, I just don't care, and you can't make me.

PS...For those of you who read my blog sometimes and are hockey fans, I'm working on something that I think might turn out kind of awesome...or, ya know, not that awesome.  I don't know yet, but just get ready for something awesome or also maybe not.